Savage O/U model 42

Prof Young · January 29, 2013, 09:34 PM

Shooters:
I really like what I'm reading about the new Savage 42 with the 22 cal rifle barrel over a 410 ga scatter gun barrel. Seems like the perfect combination of ammo for squirrel hunting and it could well be my next purchase. Anyone out there have real experience with one?
Live well, be safe
Prof Young

Stukaman · January 29, 2013, 10:17 PM

I have the original version the Stevens .22/.410 was my grandmas love that rifle good enough for the stew pot!

kraigwy · January 30, 2013, 06:38 PM

I have an older Model 24 s/e 22/410 I've had for a long time.

The first two years I lived in Alaska I lived in a little cabin north of Healy. I worked for the railroad in the summer and was laid off in the winter.

I pretty much fed my young family with that gun, snowshoe rabbits and ptarmigan.

If for some reason I had to get rid of all my guns, that would be the last one to go.

Not a glamorous as most guns, but functional, reliable, and I know with it I could always eat.

Don't know about the Savage 42, but if its anything like the 24, its will worth keeping in any gun stable.

stu925 · January 31, 2013, 10:42 PM

I've got an old Savage 24 also and think it's a great gun. Perfect for chasing small game with the .22/.410 chamberings. The 42 is the update version of the Model 24, I expect it should provide years of service for you and should also make a great small game gun.

Stu

Pfletch83 · February 3, 2013, 06:28 AM

I've been looking at the Model 42 and can see the usefulness of such a firearm.

Plus the .410 barrel seems to be cylinder choke ( I could be wrong) but that would give it a good capability to use with '000' buck and slugs.

Doyle · February 3, 2013, 07:38 AM

Quote:

use with '000' buck and slugs.

Both 000 buck and slugs are totally useless in a .410 outside of just a few yards and especially on any game.

Picher · February 4, 2013, 06:27 PM

I had a Mod 24 O/U in .22/20 gauge and it wasn't ideal for my uses, which included grouse and woodcock, jump-shooting ducks along small streams and other small game.

The sights were terrible, the .22LR barrel wasn't that accurate and the 20 gauge barrel threw an extra-full pattern. Because it had a rifle barrel, it was illegal for hunting ducks.

I found it was too slow to cock for flushing grouse.

idek · February 4, 2013, 10:03 PM

Quote:

use with '000' buck and slugs.

Both 000 buck and slugs are totally useless in a .410 outside of just a few yards and especially on any game.

Careful there Doyle. Pfletch will argue till he's blue in the face defending the .410's capabilities.

As for the initial topic, I haven't shot a 42 but handled one in a store for a while. My initial impression was that it felt and looked like a toy (i.e. cheap). The sights did not impress me at all, and the ergonomics didn't seem great. With the crude sights, I don't think it would be a great .22, and with the short (20"), lightweight barrels, it didn't feel like it would handle well as a wingshooting shotgun.

I'd like to see a company try a combination gun weighing between 6.5 and 7 pounds with low profile aperture sights to improve aiming precision with the rifle/slugs and slightly longer barrels (24" maybe, which I think is what the older 24s had) to improve barrel movement on flying targets.

As for calibers, I'd like to see a .357/20 gauge (with choke tubes) option. .38 specials could be used on small game without blowing them up, 357's could be used on varmints/predators and smaller deer out to 100 yards or better. Slugs could take larger deer out to around 75 yards. And 20 gauge shot shells could drop anything from woodcock to turkey with the right choke and ammo. Of course, getting a gun to shoot all that to same POI probably couldn't happen.

pathdoc · March 10, 2013, 06:02 PM

I've also looked at the 42 (again without having had the chance to fire it).

Everything impressed me except (a) the extractor/ejector assembly feels like plastic and (b) the sights are awful. The first one isn't a deal-breaker for me, but the second certainly is.

If this thing could be scoped easily, I would possibly reconsider. But the sights are as much the heart of the system as the barrel is. If they suck, the whole thing sucks, yes?

hodaka · March 10, 2013, 06:47 PM

Not to extend an argument but my first deer was with a .410 that my dad had emptied the 6 shot from a 3 inch shell and reloaded with #1 buck. I would not recommend but I was a young child at the time. The 9 point ran about 20 yards. He has been on the wall for the past 50 years. A .410 will kill.

Doyle · March 11, 2013, 09:35 AM

Quote:

A .410 will kill.

So will a .22LR. You owe it to your game to give him a sure and quick kill, not a lingering death.

Adventurer 2 · March 11, 2013, 08:36 PM

Just my opinion - limit your .410 slug shots to bow distances (30ish yards) and even the big bucks will drop on the spot.
My take on the the Savage 42 - Overpriced (Wal-Mart sells for $370).
Crude sights - someday, I'm going to look into getting them replaced.
You read it here first - the trigger is pathetic. Not the pull but the design. The upper part of the trigger pivots into the frame of the gun so your trigger finger has to slide down the trigger when you pull it unless you place your finger at the very end of the trigger (never seen this before).
I think it is just a matter of time before Savage drops this rifle from the lineup (if it wer $200ish - might be a different story) -All said - I would buy one again just because of the single shot .410 and single shot 22LR I owned as a kid. Now I have both rolled into one, slender, lightweight package.

January 30, 2013, 06:38 PM	#3
kraigwy Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 2008 Location: Wyoming Posts: 11,061	I have an older Model 24 s/e 22/410 I've had for a long time. The first two years I lived in Alaska I lived in a little cabin north of Healy. I worked for the railroad in the summer and was laid off in the winter. I pretty much fed my young family with that gun, snowshoe rabbits and ptarmigan. If for some reason I had to get rid of all my guns, that would be the last one to go. Not a glamorous as most guns, but functional, reliable, and I know with it I could always eat. Don't know about the Savage 42, but if its anything like the 24, its will worth keeping in any gun stable. __________________ Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071

February 3, 2013, 06:28 AM	#5
Pfletch83 Senior Member Join Date: November 3, 2012 Posts: 147	I've been looking at the Model 42 and can see the usefulness of such a firearm. Plus the .410 barrel seems to be cylinder choke ( I could be wrong) but that would give it a good capability to use with '000' buck and slugs. Last edited by Pfletch83; February 3, 2013 at 06:34 AM.

January 29, 2013, 09:34 PM	#1
Prof Young Senior Member Join Date: August 21, 2007 Location: Illinois - down state Posts: 2,404	Savage O/U model 42 Shooters: I really like what I'm reading about the new Savage 42 with the 22 cal rifle barrel over a 410 ga scatter gun barrel. Seems like the perfect combination of ammo for squirrel hunting and it could well be my next purchase. Anyone out there have real experience with one? Live well, be safe Prof Young

January 29, 2013, 10:17 PM	#2
Stukaman Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 2010 Posts: 101	I have the original version the Stevens .22/.410 was my grandmas love that rifle good enough for the stew pot!

January 31, 2013, 10:42 PM	#4
stu925 Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2010 Location: New York Posts: 953	I've got an old Savage 24 also and think it's a great gun. Perfect for chasing small game with the .22/.410 chamberings. The 42 is the update version of the Model 24, I expect it should provide years of service for you and should also make a great small game gun. Stu

February 4, 2013, 06:27 PM	#7
Picher Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2004 Location: Maine Posts: 3,694	I had a Mod 24 O/U in .22/20 gauge and it wasn't ideal for my uses, which included grouse and woodcock, jump-shooting ducks along small streams and other small game. The sights were terrible, the .22LR barrel wasn't that accurate and the 20 gauge barrel threw an extra-full pattern. Because it had a rifle barrel, it was illegal for hunting ducks. I found it was too slow to cock for flushing grouse.

March 10, 2013, 06:02 PM	#9
pathdoc Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2013 Posts: 669	I've also looked at the 42 (again without having had the chance to fire it). Everything impressed me except (a) the extractor/ejector assembly feels like plastic and (b) the sights are awful. The first one isn't a deal-breaker for me, but the second certainly is. If this thing could be scoped easily, I would possibly reconsider. But the sights are as much the heart of the system as the barrel is. If they suck, the whole thing sucks, yes?

March 10, 2013, 06:47 PM	#10
hodaka Senior Member Join Date: April 23, 2006 Location: South Texas Posts: 2,010	Not to extend an argument but my first deer was with a .410 that my dad had emptied the 6 shot from a 3 inch shell and reloaded with #1 buck. I would not recommend but I was a young child at the time. The 9 point ran about 20 yards. He has been on the wall for the past 50 years. A .410 will kill.

March 11, 2013, 08:36 PM	#12
Adventurer 2 Senior Member Join Date: September 5, 2006 Posts: 663	Just my opinion - limit your .410 slug shots to bow distances (30ish yards) and even the big bucks will drop on the spot. My take on the the Savage 42 - Overpriced (Wal-Mart sells for $370). Crude sights - someday, I'm going to look into getting them replaced. You read it here first - the trigger is pathetic. Not the pull but the design. The upper part of the trigger pivots into the frame of the gun so your trigger finger has to slide down the trigger when you pull it unless you place your finger at the very end of the trigger (never seen this before). I think it is just a matter of time before Savage drops this rifle from the lineup (if it wer $200ish - might be a different story) -All said - I would buy one again just because of the single shot .410 and single shot 22LR I owned as a kid. Now I have both rolled into one, slender, lightweight package.